ArticleWellcome open research2024
A pilot study to explore utility of electronic informed consent in a low- income setting; the case of a Controlled human infection study in Blantyre, Malawi.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Electronic informed consent can improve accuracy, workflow, and overall patient experience in clinical research but has not been used in Malawi, owing to uncertainty about availability, utility, patient data security and technical support. Objectives: We aimed to explore the utility of electronic consent (e-consent) in an ongoing human infection study in Blantyre, Malawi. Methods: The approved paper consent forms were digitized using Open Data Kit (ODK). Following participant information giving by the research staff, healthy literate adult participants with no audio-visual impairments completed a self-administered e-consent and provided an electronic signature. We dual-consented participants by both paper-based and electronic-consenting. Signed e-consent forms were uploaded to a secure study server. Utility of e-consenting was observed by participation rate, user-friendliness, documentation error rate, and staff perception of the overall consenting process. Results: All 109 participants offered e-consenting accepted participation. E-consenting was user-friendly, had no identifiable documentation errors as compared to 43.1% (n 47/109) error rate with paper-based consenting, and ensured data safety, and unravelled areas for consideration. Challenges with e-consenting included difficult digitization of ethics stamped documents, as well as present but infrequent delays of retrieval of e-consent forms. Conclusion: E-consenting is feasible, has a utility benefit in a controlled human infection study in Malawi; a low-income country, and can supplement paper-based consenting. Its usefulness can improve the consenting process in research conducted in such settings. Additionally, success of e-consenting requires a careful consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.